In the 1990s, samatha and vipassanā being introduced by Theravada monks into Japan, the interest in Buddhist meditation once again arose. One remarkable aspect of this movement is that this interest was found in ordinary society, rather than in academic circles. Later, the introduction took the form of “mindfulness,” which was less in the sense of religious practice. Much later, after the 2000s, academic fields like psychology, neuroscience, and Buddhist studies came to have an interest on this field. In recent years, they have come to question the difference between the terms chi 知 and nen 念.

I myself made have researched this question through materials of the Japanese Hossō School. I focused on two monks, Jippan 実範 (?–1144) and Ryōhen 良遍 (1194–1252). In a work titled Shinrishō 真理鈔, Jippan writes that “sensitive consciousness” would be called “non-consciousness” or nirvikalpa. In the Shinjin yōketsu 真心要決 of Ryōhen, he writes that “seeing without discriminating” and “hearing without discriminating” is the state of non-consciousness. To express being in such a state, he used the words shōchi 証知 or chi, not nen. Judging from this, chi seems to have been used for expressing the state of “non-consciousness.”

Following Gyōnen’s 凝然 words, it has been supposed that Hasshin’s 法進 Bonmōkyōchū 梵網経註 (Commentary on the Brahma Net Sutra) was based on Tiantai doctrine, and that it played a great role in making Saichō 最澄 recognize the value of Tiantai thought. But, based on the surviving fragments, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed. We can only point out that Saichō was probably moved by the tale of Nanyue Huisi’s 南嶽慧思 reincarnation as Shōtoku taishi 聖徳太子, and Hasshin’s admiration of Tiantai Zhiyi’s 智顗 achievement described in it. The influence on Saichō of Hasshin’s commentary was limited in comparison with the influence of Daoxuan’s道璿 commentary, for Daoxuan’s fundamental ideas, expressed in the text, and the “empty-sky immovable three kinds of practices” (kokū fudō no sangaku 虚空不動の三学) adopted from Zhiyi’s sayings, had a big influence on Saichō.

Saichō 最澄 particularly esteemed the Wuliangyi jing 無量義経 (Sutra of immeasurable meanings) because it supports the ideas of common people directly attaining buddhahood (Daijikidō 大直道) and that the Buddha taught for more than 40 years before revealing the ultimate truth of the Lotus Sutra. Before writing the Hokke shūku 法華秀句 in 821, Saichō did not accept that the Wuliangyi jing is theory of the teachings being expounded in accord with the capacities of their audience (zuitai 随他意) which was described in the Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義. After writing it, he accepted this idea but did not adopt the theory that the sutra is easy to believe and understand. Enchin 円珍 had raised the status of the sutra by arguing that it preaches the idea that all becomes one. Annen 安然 said that, from the point of view of the ten realms of the complete doctrine, the one vehicle and the provisional Mahayana in the Wuliangyi jing are the same.

Jōgon浄厳 (1639–1702) was a monk of the Shingon sect and a stern precept-master in the Edo period. In 1691 he founded the head temple named Reiunji 霊雲寺 in Yushima of Edo to centralize all temples of the Shingon sect in the Kantō district with the support of the Tokugawa shogunate. He asserted that Reiunji was a head temple of the Nyohō Shingonritsu 如法真言律 sect adhering rigidly to the teachings and precepts that the Buddha preached. In 1694 he proffered to the Tokugawa shogunate the Shingon ritsuben 真言律弁as a statement on the precepts of the Shingon sect. In particular, in this description: he defined “Shingonritsu” as a legitimate Shingon sect following Buddhist precepts strictly. Furthermore, he denied the Ritsu sect as a Buddhist sect. Every Buddhist sect has three aspects of practice: precepts (戒学), meditation (定学), and wisdom (慧学). Therefore, he argued that the Ritsu sect should not be approved as a Buddhist sect, because it handled just the practice of precepts, and was lacking in the other two.

Yūhan 宥範 (1270–1352), a Buddhist priest famous for the regeneration of Zentsūji 善通寺 in the province of Sanuki (today’s Kagawa prefecture), was also a learned scholar who wrote the Dainichikyō sho myōinshō 大日経疏妙印鈔, Ayūshō 阿宥鈔, and so forth. His books concern Buddhist teachings.

Yūhan’s understanding of Buddhism has been referred to in the history of esoteric teaching. However, all such references are nothing but a partial introduction of his teaching; very few studies have been conducted from the integrated viewpoint, or have focused on his later influence. Hence, in this paper, through the estimations of Yūhan by later scholars, his position in the history of the esoteric teaching is examined.

As a result, it is clarified that the reason why Yūhan is bitterly criticized by Yūkai 宥快 (1345–1416), who is thought to have established the Kōyasan Teaching, and by Myōzui 妙瑞 (1696–1764), a priest of the Kōyasan in the Edo period, is that his understanding often criticizes traditional understandings. It is also concluded that the reason why In’yū 印融 (1435–1519), a Shingon priest from the Kantō area, accepts Yūhan’s books is that In’yū examines the validity of old Kōyasan teachings relying on Izu 伊豆 understandings which flourished in the Kantō region.

The senchaku shōjō 選択証誠, the “selection made by all buddhas of the six directions witnessing the authenticity of the nenbutsu,” is one of eight kinds of “selection” that Hōnen 法然 (1133–1212), in the sixteenth chapter of his Senchakushū 選択集, derived from the Pure Land Sūtras. The eight are: (1) senchaku hongan 選択本願 (selection of the nenbutsu in Amitābha’s original vow), (2) senchaku sandan 選択讃歎(selection of the nenbutsu through the special praise of Śākyamuni), (3) senchaku rukyō 選択留教 (selection of the teaching of the nenbutsu by Śākyamuni when he designated it to stand alone), (4) senchaku sesshu 選択摂取 (selection of the nenbutsu through Amitābha’s divine light embracing those who practice it), (5) senchaku kesan 選択化讃 (selection of the nenbutsu made when Amitābha Buddha in his transformation body praised the beings of the highest level of the lowest class who utter his name), (6) senchaku fuzoku 選択付属 (selection of the nenbutsu made by Śākyamuni when he entrusted it to Ananda for transmission to future generations), (7) senchaku shōjō: (selection made by all buddhas of the six directions witnessing the authenticity of the nenbutsu), and (8) senchaku gamyō 選択我名 (selection of the name).

These eight “selections” are the most important concepts of Hōnen’s Pure Land teachings, extolling the fact that the shōmyō nenbutsu 称名念仏 is the selection of Amitābha, Śākyamuni, and other buddhas. The senchaku shōjō is derived from the Amituo jing’s 阿弥陀経 discussion of the buddhas of the six directions, discussed in chapter 14 of the Senchakshū.

Having examined previous research and discussions of the eight kinds of selection, I earlier established Genshin 源信 (810–869) as their creator, and discussed the process of composition of the Ōjōyōshū 往生要集, Gyakushu seppō 逆修説法, and Senchakushū. In this paper, I look at the Amidakyō shaku 阿弥陀経釈 in further detail.

The Amidakyō shaku presents the “nenbutsu from one to seven days” (shōjō kanjin 証誠勧進) and the proof of promotion ( josei shōjō 助成証誠) of the buddhas of the six directions. Next, in the discussion of the 37th day in Hōnen’s Gyakushu seppō, I discuss each formulation. In the discussion of the 17th day in this text, commenting on the “nenbutsu from one to seven days” Hōnen refers to its quotation in Shandao’s 善導 Fashi zan 法事賛 and its mention of “the Tathāgata selecting the key method” (如来選要法) in reference to the buddhas of the six directions, in commenting on Amitābha, Śākyamuni, and other buddhas. In the 27th day, Amitābha and Śākyamuni are discussed. Finally, in the Senchakushū only the proof of the buddhas of the six directions is infused into the “selection made by all buddhas of the six directions witnessing the authenticity of the nenbutsu.”

The basic doctrine of Hōnen’s法然disciples is to leave aside the Path of Sages and solely enter the Pure Land way, and Benchō 弁長 interprets the Pure Land way as “the Pure Land of the ten drections” and “the Pure Land of the west” in the Tetsu Senjaku hongan nenbutsushū 徹選択本願念仏集. He clarifies “the Pure Land of the ten direc­tions” by citing one sutra and commentary. This commentary is the Yixing pin 易行品 (Chapter of easy practice) of the Shizhu piposha lun十住毘婆沙論. “The Pure Land of the ten directions” expresses his fundamental understanding of the Shizhu piposha lun.

“The Pure Land of the ten directions” of the Shizhu piposha lun is a part of “the easy practice of entrusting as the means.” This practice provides that weak and inferior persons can attain the stage of non-retrogression easily and quickly. The conclusion of this study is the demonstration that Benchō, who is very concerned with how those weak and inferior persons can attain the stage and birth in the Pure Land eventually, has the same intent as does this sutra. Thus, we can see why and how he cites from the Shizhu piposha lun.

Shōkū’s 證空 (1177–1247) interpretation of the Kezenjo 化前序 (Preface to the commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing 観無量寿経 is one of the most important doctrines in the Seizan 西山 branch of the Jōdo School. Most of the previous studies show that the Kezenjo derived from Tendai doctrine. In this paper, I reexamine the background of the Kezenjo, and its influence on the Seizan branch, focusing on his direct disciples.

In the Ketsujō ōjōshū 決定往生集 written by Chinkai 珍海, the author expresses his negative attitude to the aspiration for buddhahood, wishing both self-interest and altruism that the bodhisattva of Mahayana Buddhism was obliged to practice. In other words, he was groping for rebirth in the Pure Land by means of ganshōshin 願生心 (the wish for rebirth in the Pure Land) without altruistic practices.

In addition, this attitude is inherited in his Annyō chisoku sōtaishō 安養知足相対抄. I find a relationship between the gonhosshin 近発心 in the Annyō chisoku sōtaishō and the awakening the mind of enlightenment of ordinary people described in the Ketsujō ōjōshū.

Through a consideration of these two books, I would like to inquire about Chinkai’s view of the aspiration for buddhahood in his Pure Land Buddhist thought.

In his Kangyōsho jihitsushō 観経疏自筆鈔 Shōkū 証空 (1177–1247) notes that one can obtain mushōnin 無生忍 (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti) in two ways. The first is the attainment of rebirth in Amitābha Buddha’s Pure Land. This is recorded in the beginning of the seventh vision the Guan Wualiangshou jing 観無量寿経, and signifies that one will never return to this Saha world. The second is the attainment of the dharma-body. After attaining rebirth in the Pure Land, one attains the dharma-body. Shōkū speaks of these two types because they are essential to explain the two types of transfer of merit, the outgoing (ōsō 往相) and returning (gensō 還相). The first type of attainment refers to the former mode, the second to the latter. Attaining the dharma-body is essential to return and save beings.

In the “Chapter on Practice” of the Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証, Shinran 親鸞 cites Shandao’s 善導 subcommentary, the Wangsheng lizan 往生礼讃, instead of his major work, the Guanjing shu 観経疏, to discuss his understanding of the Great Practice (Daigyō 大行). The Wangsheng lizan primarily focuses on the Pure Land Buddhist practices of “worship” and “praising.” Shinran cites this text to demonstrate the special characteristic of the “Great Practice.” It is not a practice in which sentient beings “express their devotion with recitations of Amitābha’s Name.” Rather, it is Amitābha’s “working” to guide sentient beings to true and real faith. In other words, the nembutsu as the praising of the virtues of Amitābha by the various Buddhas and good Dharma teachers becomes the voice of nembutsu recommending (teaching) people who have yet to encounter Amitābha Buddha.

Shinran 親鸞 defined the transformed body as being the Buddha described in the section on the contemplation of the true body of the Guan Wuliangshou jing 観無量寿経. According to traditional Shin Buddhist exegesis, this has been interpreted in two ways. The first holds that the transformed body refers to Amitābha within the true body, while the second holds that it refers to the transformed body described in the contemplation of the true body. To determine which of these two interpretations we should adopt, we should refer to Hōnen’s 法然 understanding of the transformed body found in the Saihō shinanshō 西方指南抄. On the basis of this text, we can understand that the transformed body refers to the transformed body described in the contemplation of the true body.

This paper examines the significance of the pretext literatures with the name of Seikaku 聖覚 (1167–1235), who was one of the representative disciples of Hōnen 法然 (1133–1212). These pretext literatures were frequently used by Shōgei 聖冏 (1341–1420) and Shōsō 聖聡 (1366–1440). Since Seikaku was one of the noted disciples of Hōnen, using his name must have been effective, and so the literatures were accepted. In addition, the name of Seikaku was effective in the Kantō area, because the so-called “Agui school of preaching” (Agui-ryū shōdō 安居院流唱導), associated with his name, was popular. It is interesting that Shōgei and Shōsō did not positively use the Yuishinshō 唯信鈔 by Seikaku, perhaps because it was not effective to introduce their doctrinal interpretation.

This paper considers the formative background of the second part of the “Keshindo monrui” 化身土文類 (Chapter on the transformed buddha-bodies and lands) of the Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証 written by Shinran 親鸞. Much has been written on this topic, particularly from various historical perspectives. However, recent discussions were published in which this theme from dogmatic perspectives is elaborated. In this paper, I develop questions over these recent dogmatic discussions and ponder whether they are appropriate or not.

This paper examines how Shinran 親鸞 developed his views on his master Hōnen 法然 by focusing on the “Seishi-san” 勢至讃 (Hymns on Mahāsthāmaprāpta) in the Jōdo wasan 浄土和讃. In these hymns, Shinran treats Hōnen as if he were an incarnation of Bodhisattva Mahāsthāmaprāpta by referring to the Da foding rulai miyin xiuzheng liaoyi zhupusa wanxing shoulengyan jing 大仏頂如来密因修証了義諸菩薩万行首楞厳経 (hereafter Śūraṃgama-sūtra). In the Śūraṃgama-sūtra, Mahāsthāmaprāpta is a disciple of Amitābha Buddha. Shinran’s writing of the hymns with reference to passages in the Śūraṃgama-sūtra reflects his respect for Hōnen by identifying him as an incarnation of the bodhisattva who had received the teaching directly from Amitābha Buddha.

This paper examines how Kaneko Daiei 金子大栄 (1881–1976) understood the structure of the Kyōgyōshinshō 教行信証. Kaneko’s analysis of the structure of the Kyōgyōshinshō centered on the relationship between the truth and expedient means. There are mainly two ways in which he understood their relationship. One is that the truth turns into expedient means in order to become involved with all sentient beings. This idea is already found in Shinrankyō no kenkyū 親鸞教の研究 published in 1925 and continued until he wrote Kyōgyōshinshō no kenkyū 教行信証の研究in 1956. The other stressed that the importance of expedient means is realized only when one awakens to the truth. This position is advanced in Kaneko’s “Nibusaku Kyōgyōshinshō” 二部作『教行信証』 dating from 1965. This latter idea represents the peak of this thinking concerning the structure of the Kyōgyōshinshō. Inasmuch as the former idea emphasized the importance of expedient means, there was a risk that it would lose sight of the importance of the truth. The latter idea arose in response to such criticism.

The Hokke mondō shōgishō 法華問答正義抄 consisting of 22 fascicles was written by Nichizen 日全 (1294–1344), a monk belonging to the Nakayama monryū 中山門流 of the Nichiren School. In this book, he exerted himself not only to stress the orthodoxy of the doctrine of Nichiren School, but also to strictly criticize the dogmatics of other Buddhist schools including Zen Buddhism. For Nichizen, the Uzenshō 有禅抄 was one of the source books for criticizing Zen Buddhism, and its two parts of quotations are found in volume 17 of the Hokke mondō shōgishō kept at the library of Rissho University as handwritten copies made by Saitō Yōrin 斉藤要輪 in the 1930s.

In this paper, I analyze those quotations, and make clear their historical and philosophical meaning, especially through their relationship with the two fascicles of the Himitsu shōbōgenzō 秘蜜正法眼蔵, which many of scholars of Zen Buddhism have hitherto believed that Dōgen 道元 (1200–1254), the first patriarch of the Japanese Sōtō School, wrote.

One of the important results of my research is that these two fascicles of the Himitsu shōbōgenzō, i.e., the Butsukōjōji 仏向上事 and the Shōji 生死, may have been edited under the influence of the Uzenshō by someone / several persons succeeding to a linage of the Japanese Sōtō School after Dōgen’s death.

This paper considers the confrontation with Buddhism and Confucianism in Takuan’s 沢庵 philosophy．He borrowed Confucian terminology in the context of discussions of ontological problems, and developed his ideas in a Confucian context．However, Takuan used Buddhist terminology as well as Confucian vocabulary in discussing the problem of the nature of mind, and based his ideas on Buddhism．In other words, he expressed Buddhist thought using Confucian terminology.

In this article, I have tried to prove the possibility that the Kenmitsu mondōshō 顕密問答鈔by Raiyu 頼瑜 (1226–1304) was written to object to the Shinzen yūshingi 真禅融心義, written by another person around Kongō zanmai-in 金剛三昧院 in 1263. It is not clear which is the earlier, but one of the two is clearly reacting to the other. And in this way, by arguing with Esoteric Buddhism, Zen probably may be extended.

In this thesis, I will discuss the correlation between reeditions of the ninety-five volume version of the Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 edited by Kōzen 晃全. There are several texts that are considered in this thesis: The Shōbōgenzō copied by Ryūjō Gyokutan 龍定玉潭 (?–1772), the books owned by Katsudō Honkō 瞎道本光 (1710–1773), and the Shōbōgenzō Kyakutaiichiji san 正法眼蔵却退一字参 (Sanchū 参註) written by Katsudō. The relationships between the books owned by Katsudō and his own work Sanchū has already been studied by other scholars; the relationships between those books and the Shōbōgenzō copied by Gyokutan, however, have not yet discussed. Therefore, by considering these books as source texts, I would like to explore the character of the Shōbōgenzō as copied by Gyokutan and interaction between scholars of the original Shōbōgenzō in the middle of Edo period.

In order to prove that those three books have deep relationships, I have considered a number of points: the friendship between Gyokutan and Katsudō, a wood-printed picture of Dōgen 道元 (1200–1253), the written postscript by Dōgen, and the texts of the Shōbōgenzō. First, the relationship of Gyokutan and Katsudō is clearly observed from the fact that Katsudō’s master Shigetsu Ein 指月慧印 (1689–1764) has a deep connection with Ryūkaiin 龍海院 and Gen’eiji 源英寺, where Gyokutan served as a chief priest. In addition, the range of works by Gyokutan and Katsudō overlap at various points. Second, the wood-printed picture of Dōgen in the beginning of the Shōbōgenzō copied by Gyokutan is also seen in the three copies of the books that were owned by Katsudō. Furthermore, in the Sanchū, three quotations from the written postscript by Dōgen can be seen, that are also found in the Shōbōgenzō copied by Gyokutan. The textual amendment from the Shōbōgenzō copied by Gyokutan is done based on the texts from the books owned by Katsudō.

To conclude, judging from the both priests’ relationship, there is a high possibility that the re-edition of the Sanchū was done based on the Shōbōgenzō copied by Gyokutan, and the reedition of the Shōbōgenzō copied by Gyokutan was done based on the book copied by Katsudō.

Ittō ryōson 一塔両尊 is a style of honzon 本尊, the main object of worship. It is a characteristic style of the medieval Nichiren sect. Ittō ryōson has the Daimoku 題目, and the calligraphy Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō 南無妙法蓮華経 in the center, and two Buddhas, Śākyamuni and Prabhūtaratna, on both sides. The style which has Śākyamuni and Prabhūtaratna on both sides itself is not peculiar to the Nichiren sect. It is based on the Lotus Sutra. However, Ittō ryōson is formed from the kernel of the Mandara honzon 曼荼羅本尊 designed by Nichiren 日蓮. There are some combinations of Śākyamuni’s and Prabhūtaratna’s inzō 印相, mudra. Ittō ryōson also has some varieties of inzō. Moreover, Ittō ryōson is the only instance in which both Śākyamuni and Prabhūtaratna in gasshō-in 合掌印. One instance of Ittō ryōson in which both Śākyamuni and Prabhūtaratna are so depicted was made in 1335. This style spread as peculiar to the Nichiren sect.

A diary is an important source of information from which we can learn not only the daily life of the writer, but also the social conditions and historical background of his time. The faith and ideas of a priest may be reflected in his diary. Such a diary offers primary information on the doctrines, practices, propagation, and faith of Buddhism.

The Nichijō shōnin nikki 日乗上人日記 (Diary of the holy priest Nichijō) describes his daily life after he was invited to Mito 水戸 by Mitsukuni 光圀, the second lord of the Mito domain, and he made a conversion to Buddhism. Although it mostly mentions his actions and beliefs, the diary introduces his efforts to propagate and convert by sermons. It tells us the forms of conversion, the level of converted people and the Mitos, especially the faith of the ladies in Mito. Most lectures aimed at conversion by Nichijō are held after his sermon, and not only Lotus Sutra believers but also others attended the lectures. Nichijō’s sermon on the Lotus Sutra offers to convert people who do not belong to any religion.

In order to clarify the significance of the main object of devotion (honzon 本尊) for Nichiren 日蓮, this paper focuses on the instructions Nichiren gave for memorial services during the time he lived on Minobusan 身延山, considering the problem of the teacher’s self-awakening. This examination was able to discover two different meanings for honzon within these instructions on memorial services―both the conventional interpretation of honzon as an object of worship as well as the honzon as something to embody. In addition, this examination was able to clarify the state of Nichiren’s enlightenment and teachings integrated with the Lotus Sutra and the world of the Lotus Sutra.

No genuine text or old manuscript of the Jūō sandanshō 十王讃嘆抄, said to be a work of Nichiren 日蓮, survives. However, this Jūō sandanshō was recorded in the Rokuge gosho 録外御書 during the early Edo period, and became well-known. How was the Jūō sandanshō introduced in the Edo period? In what situation was the Jūō sandanshō recorded in the Rokuge gosho? Nobody has clarified these questions so far. I confirm how the Jūō sandanshō was introduced in the Rokuge gosho edition, introducing some important evidence. In 1662 the Rokuge gosho was published, and almost at the same time the Jūō sandanshō was also published as an independent work, but the latter remained virtually unknown.

At present there are 3 variant versions.

1. Kyoto Nakamura Gohē 中村五兵衛 version, 32 vols.

  Publishing year unkown.

2. Kyoto Nagamura Hanbē 長村半兵衛 version, 32 vols.

  Publishing year unkown.

3. Kyoto Murakami Kanbē 村上勘兵衛 version, 32 vols.

  Publishing year unkown.

Although the three versions were published at different times, it seems that they are based on the same printing plate. When I examine the Nakamura version in detail, I found that it is older than the Rokuge gosho published in 1662. In addition, I also found proof that the printing plate of the Jūō sandanshō in the Rokuge gosho edition was made directly from the Nakamura version. Although many errors of the Nakamura version are corrected in the Rokuge gosho, surprisingly enough, some errors of the Nakamura version are left uncorrected in the Rokuge gosho. All things considered, I concluded that the Nakamura version is the source of the Rokuge gosho.

This paper focuses on the episodes in Chingen’s 鎮源setsuwa compilation, the Hokke genki 法華験記, that compare the virtues of believing in the Lotus Sutra to other belief systems, examining how the Hokke genki adopts earlier references to indicate the superiority of belief in the Lotus Sutra. As a result, it was found that Chingen used a variety of story-telling techniques in this work, whereby he clarified the plots of, and exchanged character roles from parallel stories in earlier works such as the Kanzeon ōgenki 観世音応験記, Hokke denki 法華伝記, and Hokekyōshū genki 法華経集験記. Furthermore, this report shows that the Hokke genki comparatively played down the Prajñāparāmitā Sūtra while praising the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, a tendency likely influenced by Tendai school doctrinal classification systems.

An unusual Esoteric Buddhist representation of Kannon 観音 (Avalokiteśvara) was worshipped at the Sangatsudō 三月堂 at Tōdaiji 東大寺 from nearly as early as the time of the birth of Kūkai 空海. It was produced by Kuninonaka no muraji Kimimaro 国中連公麻呂 between Tenpyō 18 and 19 (746–747). In terms of its appearance, the icon has one head, three eyes, and eight arms. It is thought to have been a product of the devotion of Kōmyō kōgō 光明皇后. Of course, the grand project of constructing the Great Buddha (Daibutsu 大仏) at Tōdaiji, an embodiment of Vairocana (Jpn. Birushana 毘盧遮那) expounded in the Huayan jing 華厳経, was sponsored by Shōmu tennō 聖武天皇. That icon was 14.7 meters in height and required 401,911 catties of copper to complete. The consecration of the Great Buddha took place in Tenpyō shōhō 4 (752), and the ceremony was attended by Shōmu tennō as well as Kōmyō kōgō. In short, the Great Buddha in the Great Buddha Hall (Daibutsuden 大仏殿) had the character of central worship object for the nation-wide system of provincial temples and was also a symbol of the authority of the ritsuryō 律令 political system, while the other statue, that was Fukūkenjaku kannon 不空羂索観音 (Amoghapāśa), was situated to represent the powerful salvation of this-worldly benefit for the people within the foundation of faith in a compassionate Kannon.

The functions of these two Buddhist icons at Tōdaiji were encompassed in the Great Buddha representing the cosmic worldview expounded in the Huayan jing and the Fanwang jing 梵網経 and Fukūkenjaku kannon that did not simply represent this-worldly benefit but also meritorious virtue (Skt. puṇya, Jpn. fukutoku 福徳) as explicated in the 26th fascicle of the Huayan jing; that is to say, fukutokushin 福徳身, the body of meritorious virtue, obtained through spiritual training within the mind of a bodhisattva, and its role was to spread disseminated merit more widely. One sees here in the move to replace “state and individual” with the “Great Buddha and Kannon” as objects of reverence the intent of the ritsuryō politics of Shōmu tennō. Be that as it may, the establishment of the structure of faith in the salvation of the people by the Fukūkenjaku kannon icon lasted many years as is seen in the principal worship object of the Nan’endō 南円堂 at Kōfukuji 興福寺 from the 12th century.

However, while it was, of course, Kōmyō kōgō, who was responsible for embellishing the principal object of worship at the Sangatsudō, faith in Kannon itself spread gradually, and the iconography of “transformations of a single form” (dōshi henge 同姿変化), e.g., the sanjūsan ōgenshin 三十三応現身 (thirty-three manifested bodies) or the thirty-three forms of Kannon, reconstituted a soteriological system based on new Buddhist icons. This was at the same time linked structurally with pilgrimages and spiritual training. While the Fukūkenjaku kannon of the Sangatsudō inherently encompassed the principles of Zōmitsu 雑密, the early, less systematic form of Esoteric Buddhism, it also further developed its functioning as a “secret Buddhist deity” (hibutsu 秘仏).

Moreover, the basic form was also to become the principal protective icon (mamori honzon 守り本尊) of the Rengebu-in 蓮花部院 of the Taizōkai 胎蔵界, one of the two fundamental esoteric mandalas imported by Kūkai. Additionally, why Fukūkenjaku kannon, one of the Roku Kannon 六観音, became the principle worship object of the Sangatsudō is a deep mystery. The universality of this icon, which stretches back to the Tenpyō era, and its function have not been sufficiently explained. The many forms of Kannon became firmly situated in the foundation of faith in this-worldly benefit; however, I believe the establishment of this long-lasting variety of faith in Fukūkenjaku kannon as savior of the people was due to a different cause.

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

Recently, an Edo-period manuscript of the hyōbyaku 表白 (invocation) used during the performance of the Kōzen’in-kō 興善院講 (Kōzen’in Assembly) at Kōfukuji 興福寺 was rediscovered and returned to the temple. The present paper uses this document to analyze the history and ritual format of this heretofore unexamined temple-internal ritual assembly. Specifically, it traces the source texts quoted in the Kōzen’in-kō hyōbyaku in order to clarify both the content of, and the underlying intent behind, the performance of the Kōzen’in Assembly. This ritual was held monthly on the death day of the scholar-monk Zōshun 蔵俊 (1104–1180), and consisted of an exposition of the Jieshenmi jing 解深密経 (Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra), as well as an oral doctrinal debate. The sutra exposition included in the text is particularly noteworthy for citing heavily from the Haesimmilkyŏng so 解深密経疏 by the Tang-dynasty Korean monk Wŏnch’ŭk 円測. Although still in its initial stages, the study of the Kōzen’in-kō hyōbyaku promises to shed valuable light on temple-internal debate rituals and the interaction between scholar-monks at Kōfukuji during the late medieval and early modern periods.

In the Yŏlban chong’yo 涅槃宗要, one of Wŏnhyo’s 元暁 commentaries on the Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃経, we can find a parallel passage within his work Yijang ŭi 二障義. Wŏnhyo himself explained that one should refer to the Yijang ŭi. The Yijang ŭi had been lost in early times but a manuscript of this text was discovered in Japan, and the text was published in 1979.

By comparing the parallel passages in the Yŏlban chong’yo and Yijang ŭi, we could clear up two points. First, Wŏnhyo wrote the Yŏlban chong’yo by skipping or changing some phrases or sentences in the Yijang ŭi.

Second, the meaning of some Chinese characters whose meaning was uncertain in the Yŏlban chong’yo could be clarified.

There exist two catalogues of the Sixi 思渓 edition of the Tripiṭaka: First is the Huzhou Sixi Yuanjue chanyuan xindiao dazangjing mulu 湖州思渓円覚禅院新彫大蔵経目録, known as the catalogue of the Sixi Yuanjue chanyuan, or the early Sixi catalogue; second is the Anjizhou Sixi fabao Zifuchan si dazangjing mulu 安吉州思渓法宝資福禅寺大蔵経目録, known as the catalogue of the Sixi Zifuchan si, or the later Sixi catalogue.

Concerning the relationship of those two catalogues, two distinct opinions were presented. Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙 pointed out the existence of two kinds of book formats, i.e., the scroll format and the binding format, in the copies of the Sixi edition of the Tripiṭaka. Ogawa Kan’ichi 小川貫弌 assumed that the copies of scroll format were published in the Yuanjue chanyuan and the copies of binding format were published in the Zifuchan si.

Ogawa’s opinion has not been paid attention to so far, but it provides a clue as to the identification of the revision which is supposed to have been introduced into the later publication. In this article, I verify Ogawa’s opinion by analyzing the engraver’s names of both publications, and prove that copies of the scroll format were published in the Yuanjue chanyuan.

Dao’an’s 道安 Jingtu lun 浄土論 is quoted in Huiying’s 慧影 Da zhidu lun shu 大智度論疏. In previous studies, opinions were divided about whether Dao’an lived in the Eastern Jin dynasty, or in the Northern Zhou dynasty. I consider the thought and translations in the Jingtu lun, and find that these are not representative of the Eastern Jin. Therefore, I conclude that Dao’an belongs to the Northern Zhou.

This paper examines a main theme of Daochuo’s 道綽 Pure Land thought as he defines it in the beginning of the Anle ji 安楽集, in which he encourages people to seek faith in the Pure Land path by saying “calling for faith to attain birth in the Pure Land” (quanxin qiuwang 勧信求住). In order to clarify the meaning of this passage essential for understanding the Anle ji, in this paper, I examine Daochuo’s use of the words quan and xin in the text. In the text of the Anle ji, the word xin is always used to call for faith in the Pure Land teaching. This clearly shows that the most significant idea of the teaching of the Anle ji is to guide people to enter the path of the Pure Land teaching. Therefore, the Anle ji is not simply a scholarly commentary summarizing the teaching of the Guan Wuliangshou jing 観無量寿経. It is rather a book written in evangelical enthusiasm with strong missionary motivation to propagate Pure Land Buddhism.

This paper addresses the question of the understanding of the theory of gotra (Chi. zhongxing 種姓/種性) in the Dilun school in the center after the translation of the Pusa dichi jing 菩薩地持経 by Tanwuchen 曇無讖 (385–433).

In Chinese Buddhism, the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業経 and the Renwang jing 仁王経 are the first scriptures to state the 42 stages of a bodhisattva. The theory of gotra in the Pusa dichi jing, namely the xi zhongxing 習種性 and the xing zhongxing 性種性, corresponded with the stages of a bodhisattva offered by the author of the Pusa yingluo benye jing. From this, if one continues training, not only the xi zhongxing, but also the xing zhongxing can be obtained.

Although the theory of gotra in the Pusa dichi jing was more or less adopted, the author of the Pusa yingluo benye jing equated the xi zhongxing and the xing zhongxing to the stages of a bodhisattva. The xi zhongxing is placed in front of the xing zhongxing. Therefore, the significance of the xing zhongxing is lessened. For this reason, no one lacks the possibility of becoming a Buddha. This differs from the Pusa dichi jing.

In the Tang dynasty, Fazang 法蔵 (643–712) advocated his system of doctrine to enhance the “special teaching of the unique vehicle” (biejiao yisheng 別教一乗) of Huayan based on the teachings centered on the Buddha-avataṃsaka-sūtra (Chi. Huayan jing 華厳経). His system of thought is organized by a classification of doctrines called the Five Doctrines and Ten Schools (五教十宗判), which was mentioned in the Huayan wujiao zhang 華厳五教章.

Fazang classifies all the discourses of Buddhism by the following five teachings: the “Lesser Vehicle” (Xiaosheng 小乗), the “initial teaching” (shijiao 始教) of the Great Vehicle, the “final teaching” (zhongjiao 終教) of the Great Vehicle, the “sudden teaching” (dunjiao 頓教) of the Great Vehicle and the “complete teaching” (yuanjiao 円教) of the unique vehicle.

This paper analyzes the theory of kleśa in the Huayan wujiao zhang. The conclusions are as follows. In this study the main stress falls on the opposition of thought between the initial teaching and the final teaching. On the one hand, the initial teaching emphasizes the emptiness of kleśa, On the other hand, the final teaching emphasizes the existence of kleśa. Ultimately the special teaching overcomes both of them.

Although Yugang Mengrun’s 玉岡蒙潤 (1275–1342) Tiantai sijiaoyi jizhu 天台四教儀集註 has been used widely from the Edo period onward, it is a fact that this text contains a number of unorthodox views, of which its explanation of the Teaching of the Incomprehensible State (huata busiyi jing 化他不思議境) is one example. However, Mengrun’s interpretation of this concept should not been seen as a mere mistake. Mengrun interpreted the Teaching of the Incomprehensible State as not actively preaching to others. Furthermore, this interpretation of Mengrun is related to the Establishment of Teachings (qijiao 起教), which is not part of the Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止観. In the Song period, Siming Zhili 四明知礼 (960–1028) suggested that one should practice the Establishment of Teachings before the realization of Buddhahood (chengfo 成仏). Although Jingjue Renyue 浄覚仁岳 (992–1064), as a monk of the Post Shanwai group (Hou Shanwai pai 後山外派), criticized Zhili’s theory, Foguang Fazhao 仏光法照 (1185–1273) and Wulin Kedu 武林可度 (dates unknown) defended Zhili’s theory against Renyue’s criticism. The present paper demonstrates that this debate in Song period Tiantai is the source of Mengrun’s explanation.

The Xu Gaoseng zhuan 続高僧伝 was written by Daoxuan 道宣. It has 10 chapters in total. In this paper, I discuss the disciples of Zhiyi 智顗 in the Xichan pian 習禅篇 section, and study the Chan contemplation of each person. Specifically, I focus on Zhikai 智鍇, Zhiyue 智越, Boruo 波若, Fayan 法彦, Zhixi 智晞, Guanding 灌頂, Zhizao 智璪, and Puming 普明.

In East Asia, Buddhist logic yinming 因明 was mainly researched within the Weishi (Vijñaptimātra) school. It is clear that they developed their own understanding of logic which is different from that of Indian traditions. However, the attitude towards yinming outside of the Weishi School has yet to be clarified. In this paper, I clarify the reaction against yinming tradition within China by focusing on the understanding of those outside of the Weishi School.

The Sautrāntika school begins with Kumāralāta as well as Aśvaghoṣa according to the third volume of the late Prof. Kanakura Yenshō’s 金倉圓照 Indo chūsei seishinshi 印度中世精神史 (A History of medieval Indian spirit), which was left in manuscript at his death in 1987. Vasubandhu cited twice Kumāralāta’s Sautrāntika tenets in the first chapter of his Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and argued for his Sautrāntika standpoint. Dharmakīrti constructed a Sautrāntika philosophy after studying the Abhidharmakośa. His epistemology is composed of the triad of objects as cause, resemblance (sārūpyam) as action and cognition as effect. This composition opposes the idealistic epistemology of Dignāga, who asserted the trinity in the self-cognition (svasaṃvedanam). That is reconfirmed by opposing it at Pramāṇavārttika III, 346.

Dharmakīrti relates this tenet in his first text, the Nyāyabindu, chapter one (sūtra 20–21). According to the Ṭippaṇī, p. 19, Dharmakīrti added the Sautrāntika definition of perception, “no confusion” (abhrāntam), to the idealistic definition of perception, “no construction” (kalpanāpoḍham) offered by Dignāga. F. I. Stcherbatskoi pointed out this statement in one of his first work (Izdal Fakultét, no. 14, Petrograd, 1903; German translation by O. Strauss, p. 113). Prof. Kanakura cited this comment in his manuscript through the German version.

Furthermore Dharmakīrti demonstrated the tenet of momentariness (kṣaṇikatvam) without any cause in the second chapter (“Pramāṇasiddhi”) of the Pramāṇavārttika succeeding to Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu. The logic for proving it was completed in his Vādanyāya. The “Kṣaṇikavāda” became the catch-phrase of Dharmakīrti. The second chapter of the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha begins with a citation of his logic.

The religious chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika is based on the strong faith in Buddha as “Authoritative One” (Pramāṇabhūtaḥ). Dharmakīrti demonstrates Buddha’s credibility from his altruism as Savior (tāyī), borrowing the illustration of the five epithets of Buddha related in the dedication verse of the Pramāṇasamuccaya by Dignāga, as well as that of the Abhidharmakośa of Vasubandhu.

A. B. Keith already cited the name and article of Prof. Kanakura from the Jacobi Felicitation Volume in his History of Sanskrit Literature (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers, 1993), preface, p. 20.

Since the Gṛhyasūtras, water has been involved in the rituals of giving gifts. As to the use of water at the giving of a girl to the suitor in the marriage ceremony, some Gṛhyasūtras preserve concrete prescriptions, while the Dharma texts prescribe it simply in the phrases “to give with water (adbhir dā)” or “to give being preceded by water (udakapūrva-)” without giving any details. Those simple phrases, which are attested since the younger Gṛhyasūtras and the Dharma texts, continue prevalently for other kinds of gift as well in post-Vedic texts.

In Buddhist texts, the giving of donations and the giving of a girl in marriage are described principally in the same or similar expressions in the narratives: one is said to give a gift with a water-jar in hand. On the other hand, the enumeration of forms of marriage and wife in the Vinayas preserves a peculiar and concrete use of water at a certain type of marriage. Such a unique description might reflect the various uses of water at the rites of giving gifts before their descriptions were unified and simplified.

The Rāso Literature is famous particularly as the style for heroic tales of Rajput kings from the 14th to 16th century. But the early Rāso literature was known first by Jain writers. The Jains composed numerous hagiographical works in the Prakrit or Apabhraṃśa languages for centuries. They adopted the Rāso style mainly for writing hagiography from the 12th century.

We can classify Jain Rāso works into several genres. It is likely that the hagiographical Rāso is a near descendant of the Jain Prakrit or Apabhraṃśa literature. There are, however, several non-hagiographical Jain Rāso works.

This study attempts to show the influences of the Saṃdhi-bandha style of the Apabhraṃśa literature on the formation of the Rāso style. Moreover, we suggest that the early Rāso literature includes many genres and styles that have been differentiated into heroic Rāso, Carcarī, Phāgu, Bārahmāsā, and so on.

The Sanskrit word avatāra means the appearance or incarnation of a deity (especially Viṣṇu) on earth. In this paper, I discuss the development of the concept of avatāra in the Vārkarī sect, according to the Eknāthī-Bhāgvat, written in the Marāthī language by the sant (poetic saint) Eknāth in the 16th century.

In the Sanskritic Vaiṣṇava tradition, it is believed that Lord Viṣṇu descends to the earth as avatāras for the salvation of his devotees. After that, Eknāth expanded this concept of avatāra. He insisted that his guru Janārdana is an avatāra of God and emphasized the importance of guru-bhakti (devotion to the guru). This modification of the concept of avatāra made sant-worship possible for later Vārkarīs.

In his exposition of Nyāyasūtra 1.1.6, which defines analogy or identification (upamāna), Udayana (ca. 11th century CE) made an important statement that has been considered as symbolically indicating a turning point in the history of the Nyāya tradition. According to Udayana, Vācaspati Miśra (ca. 10th c.) refers to the “refutation of the Old Naiyāyika, Jayanta and others (jarannaiyāyika-jayanta-prabhṛti-).” This statement has long been considered by scholars as a witness of Bhaṭṭa Jayanta’s (ca. 9th c.) chronological antecedence to Vācaspati. However, the statement has not received sufficient philological examination by offering an analysis of relevant passages that positively substantiate Udayana’s witness. Furthermore, Udayana calls Vācaspati the “modern Naiyāyika” (abhinavanaiyāyika), with the emphasis on Vācaspati’s novelty. The present paper aims at giving these views by Udayana a certain level of plausibility by examining relevant passages from Vācaspati’s Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā and Jayanta’s Nyāyamañjarī. The analysis also relies on a passage from an as yet unpublished portion of Vardhamāna’s (ca. 14th c.) Nyāyanibandhaprakāśa, a commentary on Udayana’s Nyāyavārttikatātparyapariśuddhi. In addition to detecting theories of Jayanta to which Vācaspati allegedly refers, the paper describes an innovative aspect of Vācaspati’s own theory of analogy, which will, in effect, mark the theory presented by Jayanta as theoretically cumbersome (gaurava).

There is great similarity between time (kāla) and space (diś) in the Vaiśeṣika category system accomplished by Praśastapāda. These terms are defined as eternal and all-pervading substances, that cause everything that has an origin because their functions are like mathematical coordinates. However, there are some differences between them. Praśastapāda proclaimed that only time is the cause of origin (utpatti), duration (sthiti), and destruction (vināśa), and Wilhelm Halbfass asked why Praśastapāda did not repeat this statement with regard to space. To answer that question, I investigate the two unique notions, temporal point (kālapradeśa) and spatial point (dikpradeśa). In Praśastapāda’s Padārthadharmasaṃgraha, action is explained as conjunction and disjunction with spatial points. On the other hand, a temporal point seems to have a particular relationship to origin, duration and destruction, although Praśastapāda did not expressly refer to this relationship. I infer that this ignorance results from the difficulty of applying the spatial theory of conjunction and disjunction to time and temporal point. Praśastapāda probably tried to explain origin, duration and destruction using the notion of temporal point, but he must have abandoned this idea.

Śaṅkara and Bhāskara, two of the most well-known Vedānta scholars, in their respective commentaries on the Brahmasūtra quote the same verse, whose source is unknown, with regard to a transmigrating body, or puryaṣṭaka. The term puryaṣṭaka, which is found in Vedānta, dharmaśāstra, and Śaiva texts, literally means “eightfold fortress (purī),” but its eight components are interpreted differently by scholars including Śaṅkara and Bhāskara. This paper tries to clarify Śaṅkara’s and Bhāskara’s interpretations of these eight components in their respective commentaries on the Brahmasūtra, and furthermore aims to examine the source of the verse.

Śaṅkara, who does not specify the eight components, quotes a passage from the Br̥hadāraṇyakopaniṣad saying “indeed hands are graspers (graha)” (3.2.8), and interprets the term “graspers” as “bondage” (bandha) before quoting the verse in his commentary on Brahmasūtra 2.4.6, in which the number of prāṇa (vital functions) is dealt with. Considering Br̥hadāraṇyakopaniṣad 3.2.1–9, in which eight “graspers” are mentioned, we can conclude from context that Śaṅkara understands the components of puryaṣṭaka to be these eight graspers, namely, prāṇa (i.e., the olfactory function), the taste function, the vocal function, the visual function, the manas, hands, and the tactile function.

Bhāskara, on the other hand, mentions these eight components as the five vital airs (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, and samāna), the faculty of eleven organs, and the intellect (buddhi). In addition, considering Bhāskara’s conception of the components of a “soul” enveloped by a “subtle body,” we might safely assume that Bhāskara interprets the components of puryaṣṭaka as the five vital airs, the ten organs, manas, and the intellect. The validity of this interpretation is verified by a correspondence to the seventeen components of transmigrating liṅga, which are often mentioned in Vedānta texts, namely, the five vital airs, the five cognitive organs, the five motor organs, the intellect, and the manas.

As for the source of this verse, Śaṅkara quotes it from a smr̥ti, while Bhāskara attributes it to paurāṇikāḥ, while in their respective commentaries on the Mānavadharmaśāstra Medhātithi quotes it from a purāṇa, while Kullūka introduces it as “brahmapurāṇe.” However, in the presently available Brahmapurāṇa, this verse cannot be found. Lakṣmīdhara in his Kr̥tyakalpataru introduces the verse as “brahmāṇḍapurāṇe,” and, while the latter half of this passage is found in Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa 4.3.55, the first half, which contains the puryaṣṭaka in question, is missing. The same applies to Vāyupurāṇa 102.75cd–76ab, which parallels Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa 4.3.55. Taking a recent study by Kengo Harimoto into account, which shows that the purāṇa text known to Śaṅkara is a common ancestor of the Vāyupurāṇa and the Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa, it is possible that Śaṅkara is quoting this verse from this ancestral text. If this is true, it shows that the term puryaṣṭaka is an old expression dating back to the era before the composition of this ancestral text. Furthermore, we can conclude that Śaṅkara’s unique interpretation of the components of puryaṣṭaka implies that he was unfamiliar with the interpretation of it corresponding to the seventeen components of transmigrating liṅga.

This paper shows how Abhinavagupta interprets “pratibhā” in Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā, to make clear how the viewpoint of the Pratyabhijñā is reflected in his interpretation.  

According to Utpaladeva’s own vṛtti, “pratibhā” is nothing but a synonym for “ābhāsa” (manifestation/appearance), and it should not be understood as “intuition” or “flash of understanding” in a technical sense, but as “light” or “appearance.”  For Abhinavagupta, it connotes the self to which objects appear.  The upasarga “prati” implies that it is to the self that objects appear.  Thus, for him, “pratibhā” means “appearance to the self.” 

Interestingly, Utpaladeva does not explicitly refer to this interpretation even in the vivṛti, of which fragments have been discovered recently.  However, this does not mean that it is original to Abhinavagupta.  His interpretation reflects the viewpoint of the Pratyabhijñā that appearances and objects never exist independently from the self. 

Some Śrāvakācāra texts which include prescriptions for the conduct of Jain laity refer to a set of seven vices (vyasana) consisting of gambling, drinking alcohol, meat-eating, whoring, hunting, thieving, and adultery. Based on an investigation of the primary sources, this paper surveys these seven vices and their historical background.

Section 1 of this article provides an overview of the classification and descriptions of the seven vices found in these Śrāvakācāra texts. It clarifies the following two points. (1.1) Texts which refer to the seven vices are comparatively few in number and the descriptions of the vices are highly stereotypical in nature. (1.2) Only the Digambara texts contain references to the seven vices. However, even among Digambara scriptures, those thought to be relatively old lack such references.

Section 2 examines the position and significance of the seven vices within the context of the conduct of Jain laity. The following three points are revealed. (2.1) The seven vices are not included in the main code of conduct for Jain laity. (2.2) The content of the seven vices overlaps with that of the notion of restraint (vrata) and other related concepts. (2.3) The seven vices stand in a close relationship with the eight fundamental virtues (mūlaguṇa) and an overlap or mixing of content between the seven vices and the eight fundamental virtues can be discerned.

Section 3 investigates vices described in non-Jaina texts, especially the Arthaśāstra, Manusmṛti, and Śyainikaśāstra. It emerges that something equivalent to the concept of the seven vices of the Jain laity was also in circulation in wider Indian society.

In light of the above, the article reaches the conclusion that, at some point, some Digambara monk introduced the concept of vices that was prevalent in general Indian society at the time into Jainism. Under his influence, other monks then reproduced this concept in their own writings.

The UNESCO/JFIT project, “Strengthening the Conservation and Management of Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha, Phase 2,” focused on investigation of Tilaurakot, has been ongoing since 2014. An International excavation team of experts is co-directed by Professor Robin Coningham of Durham University and Former Director General Kosh Prasad Acharya of the Department of Archaeology, and the project is comprised of members from Durham University, the Lumbini Development Trust, the Department of Archaeology, the National Geographic, and others. The project is focusing on the morphological and chronological definition of Tilaurakot.

The purpose of this paper is to report the archaeological results form Lumbini (2010–2013) and describe in outline the current archaeological survey of Tilaurakot (2014–2017).

Referring to the formation of the twelvefold chain of dependent origination, Takeuchi Yoshinori 武内義範 stated that avijjā and saṅkhāra are essential concepts to explain dependent origination in its cessation aspect. This theory says that avijjā and saṅkhāra were added to the theory because the cessation of saṅkhāra was found to be the cause of the cessation of viññāṇa. Therefore, it is the cessation of saṅkhāra, and not saṅkhāra itself, that I am interested in. In this paper, I intend to consider the meaning of the cessation of saṅkhāra and offer an opinion on the formation of the twelvefold chain of dependent origination.

This examination argues that the cessation of saṅkhāra plays an important role in meditation. As meditation develops through different stages, saṅkhāra ceases gradually, finally reaching the stage where one is free from consciousness and sensation (saññāvedayitanirodha), where saṅkhāra ceases completely.

As mentioned above, the complete cessation of saṅkhāra, that is, the attainment of saññāvedayitanirodha, represents the ultimate state of meditation. On the other hand, the cessation of avijjā (vijjā) represents insight. Thus, I infer that the cessation of avijjā and saṅkhāra is applied only to dependent origination in its cessation aspect as practical stages: insight and meditation.

This paper investigates Pāli papañca- focusing on colloquial usage. From the Aṭṭhakathā onward, papañca- is used not only in dogmatic contexts, but also in ordinary contexts. The Saddanīti tells us that papañca- means “a long time” (Sadd 529, 1) in colloquial usage. The nuance of this term, however, is “a waste of time.” Parallel cases are found in many passages.

As a result of this investigation, I conclude that papañca- basically means “a superfluity, a futility” in colloquial usage. Papañceti (denom.) and its paraphrase papañcaṃ karoti also means “do what is unnecessary, make an unnecessary addition to, meddle, etc.” The unique temporal meaning is presumably derived from this basic meaning, namely “there is a superfluity for one > one is busily occupied with something, or indulges in something > one wastes one’s time.” The characteristic syntax in which this term is used includes concrete examples of what is superfluous. In that case, papañca- becomes a complement.

Papañca- in colloquial usage inherits a negative sense of value expression from its dogmatic usage. In spite of showing unique semantic change, it seems that the basic meaning is essentially the same as Classic prapañca- except for the difference in the implied value expressed.

In this paper, I will argue that there was a subculture of ascetic practice in the institutionalized Indian Buddhist monastery of the so-called “middle period.” I will focus on two types of practice, which may be grouped under the category of śmaśāna, or cemetery, asceticism. The first is pāṃśukūlika, a practice which, in this case, involves retrieving material for one’s monastic robes from corpses. The second is aśubha-bhāvanā, or corpse meditation.

I compared the contents of the Lalitavistara with 24 functions of Morphology of the Folktale (1927) by Vladimir Propp, 17 stages of the Hero’s Journey by Joseph Campbell (The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 1949), and 12 stages of Christopher Vogler’s The Writer’s Journey (2007).